Very good point Redway,so much damage and destruction done by alcohol related crimes,and Yes this lady did wrong,but death? really is too extreme.

And I was at a council meeting on Monday where we had police officers detailing how they place objections to establishments trying to sell liquor.

The fundamental difference is that liquor is currently legal, drugs are not! In some countries liquor is just as outlawed.

For the record I am teetotal

This must be one of the most disgusting cases of injustice that I have ever seen. And effectively cheering and getting excited at a woman's impending execution is perhaps the most disturbing thing I have ever seen on this forum. There are no words.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind Sticks, that perhaps we should focus on and begin to try and investigate and understand why such crimes happen in the first place? Why people turn to drugs and drug-related crime? Instead of all this reactionary 'hang the bastard! chop his balls off!!!! die *****!!!!!!!!' nonsense that doesn't actually discover the true causes of such crime. Just an idea.

Thank you :).
So the fact that alcohol's legal renders it totally harmless and safe to use, does it? I think you'll find that alcohol is in the top 5 of most harmful drugs - legal or illegal - and the status of all these other substances absolutely does not mean that they should have that status and you're coming across as quite ignorant on this issue with your wacky, dodgy and quite frankly sickening views on drugs.

Bottom is alcohol does cause more damage than a lot of other substances and whether it's legal or illegal is completely irrelevant and bares no relevance to this at all. At all. You can spin it all you like but it's the truth.

I'm not denying that cocaine's a very harmful substance - and not condoning this lady's behaviour - but locking someone up for life is harsh enough. Killing someone over it takes the piss and it's retarded and I'm not sure which is more worrying - the rules or the fact that someone is actually eager for someone to die.

Agree with this. A lady smuggling millions of pounds' worth of cocaine is an extreme case but normally there are underlying reasons that drive them to it and these people who are so in favour of the barbaric current drugs laws seldom consider the fact there are emotional issues and misfortunate events, etc, that could have driven them to take the drug in the first place. It's just like why people turn to alcohol in a lot of cases ... only with illegal substances and a lot of people sadly tend to think illegal = worthy of imprisonment and would rather these people are kept in cages rather than given the help they need (if they want it).

It's ridiculous.

When I was at university we heard the sad case of a 12 year old who died after taking one ecstasy tablet.

Drugs are not harmless

Those who gave that girl the tablet should have been done for murder

And how many people are killed a year with alcohol? I know that drugs can potentially be very dangerous but the same criticisms apply to legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, and somehow I don't see much prohibition with any of these substances?

Legal does not = safe and illegal does not = dangerous (and vice versa).

Exactly. But of course the almighty powers above know best...

Let's just believe what we're told and not think for ourselves.

Exactly. This hypocritical "drugs are bad for you because they just are ok" notion is for those who don't actually think for themselves and believe anything just because the government approves/disapproves of it and to be for such an ineffective, ridiculous and by and large unsupported approach because TPTB say so is ignorant.

Of course, the government has always been right with the approach to this topic - such as prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s? Somehow that doesn't get a mention.

I fully agree. I love it when when people are murdered, and it's a damn shame there isn't more of it.

:joker:

I think they should televise it. Let's all sit around and watch this nasty woman get her comeuppance. Actually, ***** it, let's have a Bank Holiday to celebrate it as well. Get the party poppers out and throw a nationwide banquet. I'm sure Sky News will have a field day in covering the fun and frolics of this wonderful day.

i agree. she deserves punishment but not death. cant believe someone is jumping for joy over this. f'ing disgusting.

Sticks didn't you say you were a mod on a forum?


D:

are they like

These are laws of another country, if you go there and break the law you have to suffer the consequenses.
No matter how severe, we all make choices in life...she made hers.

Her decision was wrong and short-sighted, sure, but killing is inhumane and far more wrong than smuggling coke. Give her a prison sentence but I don't see the merit in murdering someone in cold blood over it. Doesn't that make you worse than her and the objective thus obliterated? I'd have thought that making choices in life wouldn't result in the end of it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...on-death-drugs

Vile. Totally vile. And people support this punishment?

If she didn't want it she shouldn't have smuggled drugs, simple.

She must have known the harsh penalties for smuggling drugs in that area. I do hope she does not have to be killed but I do think she has to serve a extremely long prison sentence and I also,sorry to say, don't see any reason why the Birtish Govt,in other words the British Taxpayer should fund her appeal either.

I am sure our Govt could though write and make an appeal for mercy for her and I still think that would likely be enough to at least get her death sentence revoked.

We in the UK have chosen to take that stance, but we can't dictate laws to other countries.
If our citizens go there and break the law then they must take responsibility.
See the devestation drugs has caused this family?

And you don't think being murdered is going to cause the family even more devastation?

It's not like she's being killed for something she didn't do. The fact is she commited a crime and she is a criminal. Just because she's a British Citizen doesn't mean she has the right to be above the law in another country. She knew what she was doing and got caught, end of. There's plenty more people to worry about than some middle aged drug pusher.

You have to move away from this 'murdered' veiw, it is justice in this country.
It dosen't matter what our opinion is.

You can move away from this view if you like but it's still murder albeit state sponsored. I don't believe in the Death Penalty for murderers so you can imagine how I feel about the possibility of this Mother being executed for smuggling in a few ounces of drugs. Imprison her if you think this will teach her a lesson, but please don't think it's OK to put her up against a wall and execute her.

Utterly barbaric and disgusting in this day and age... Shame on this country

:worship:

Well said.

No doubt contaminated as a result of the prohibition that you support. To the best of my knowledge pure MDMA has not killed anybody who has not been foolish to overdose, dehydrate or overhydrate themselves.

I notice you ignored my last post. I'd like a response to all of it.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that it is state sponsored murder and the death sentence is extreme, it is a little more than "couple of ounces" of coke she was caught smuggling....

It was only 2 generations back we had 'state sponsored murder'.
She was not carrying a couple of ounces it was worth millions.

The amount she smuggled isn't really the issue, the fact she is going to be murdered for doing it appalls me. We stopped executing convicted murderers in the 1960's but this country thinks its ok to execute someone who has not killed anyone.

Hopefully she will get the sentence commuted to a lengthy prison term.

It is the issue....
They take a hard line (no pun intended) on drug related crime, they see those who transport vast amounts of class A substances catalysts for what we consider more serious crimes maybe?
Sex trafficking, money laundering, murder and terrorism...
I hope like you that they don't make an example of this woman.

If I recall it was a pure ecstasy tablet, although deliberate contamination is another point against drug use.

These compounds are banned for good medical reasons, even cannabis will cause long term health problems to users (See here). As to Alcohol and tobacco, those compounds, none of which I indulge in, were effectively grandfathered in, and if they were introduced today it is likely, with tobacco at least, they would be treated the same as illegal narcotics

As to your question, which is a few pages back, which one took as rhetorical, that is not an option while we remain a member of the European Union, so would be pointless to consider that measure to deter and make an example of those who persist in this evil trade.

This execution, when it goes ahead will be a warning to all on the periphery of this evil trade that this is how seriously we take this menace.

..Londsay Sandiford is a victim in this as well..the lives of her children were threatened, Julian Ponder, who was said to be the 'mastermind' was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and the recommended sentence for her was 15 years..the judge gave the death penalty because he didn't want Bali's tourist image damaged..that was the reason he gave...it had nothing to do with concern for these drugs on the street...

..to execute her will achieve nothing as there will also be another 'victim' like her and is barbaric in the extreme..a 15 year term in a Bali prison, is sufficient to 'teach' anyone a lesson, Lindsay herself and anyone else in the future...

They Wont

No, they are not. They were banned for poor medical reasoning and out of a knee jerk reaction to fresh experiences of the mind that were misunderstood or wrongly perceived to be horrifying. They continue to remain illegal because it has built up in to a sturdy zeitgeist that no politician want to step out from the shadows to break. Politicians are typically weak people.

If medical reasoning mattered at all then the American government would have listened to Judge Francis Young - a DEA man - in 1988 when he declared Cannabis to be one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man.

If medical reasoning mattered the British government would have listened to Professor David Nutt - the then chair of the governments own Advisory Committee on Misuse of Drugs - when he declared Ecstasy to be safer than hose riding and when he repeatedly called for a relaxing of soft drug laws. Cannabis is currently ranked to be of equal danger to base amphetamines in British drug legislation. That is not scientific. That's science and policy on it's knees in the mud.

If medical reasoning mattered Professor Nutt would not have been unceremoniously sacked from his position. Governments would take their scientific advice first hand from unbiased scientific bodies when dictating drug laws and not from pressure groups with vested interests because the woman outside with the placard had a son who knocked back too many pills on top of a crate of alcohol and went sick then dead.

Medical reasoning does not matter.

Why are you using the word 'will'? Chances are Cannabis won't cause you long term health problems at all. Are you being facetious for the sake of it because you personally don't like an altered mind and prefer to stay in and check out a good old execution instead?

I have talked at length on this forum for a number of years now about the emerging trend of demonizing the mental state of Cannabis intoxication and it's purported effects on mental health. I was engaged in debate on topics like the ratio of cannabinoids in the make up of the plant years before the papers caught up with it [some still haven't].

The practical invention and mystical attributes given to "skunk weed" have created this weird sort of fantasy land for journalists who now have carte blanche to hanker back to the days of Reefer Madness and talk about smoking pot as if it's a trip down the rabbit hole with undertones of demonic possession.

Some are only coming around to and respecting the fact now that these mental health effects are not only blown out of proportion but are symptoms of the illegal environment the plant inhabits. It's not the strength per say of Cannabis that is sometimes dangerous but the exact chemical make up of the plant. It's easier to just say it's stronger and scarier than ever, I know.

The trend towards indoor grows where Cannabis is cultivated guerrilla style hard and fast in an ultra artificial environment by crime gangs who don't respect the product has resulted in THC enriched Cannabis that has all but had the CBD bred out of it. CBD is Cannabidiol. It's the true magic of Cannabis that is only coming to light in recent times.

Cannabidiol and other Cannabinoids like it in the Cannabis plant [if you ever want to flex your keyboard fingers in a improvisational groove band feel free to use that as a name, man] play a huge, very important role in mediating the effects of THC [tetrahydrocannabinol, the stuff that gets you groovy]. They round out the intoxication of Cannabis, infuse it with it's medical properties and protect against THC giving the brain too much of a kicking.

Cannabidiol is an anti psychotic, anti anxiety agent. It has all but been bred out of most commercial strains of the ganj because of the illegal marketplace it exists in. Because of the zeitgeist of cowardice and anti science that you support.

So it's not just a question of strength. I'm regularly getting great hash that is far stronger than most of the mass market variations of haze and cheese that are smoking up the marketplace on this side of the pond but it's infinitely relaxing.

So in essence this mental health scare is an overreaction to a market trend created and preserved by Cannabis's illegality in the first place. And that is without me even going into sprayed and contaminated Cannabis.

Of course it wasn't rhetorical. I was pretty passionate in my insistence that you grace me with an answer regardless of the hypothetical nature of it. You could be brave and just do that.

One would assume you would support a similar system of judicial catastrophe on British shores. I would like to know as an honest, up front recreational drug user who has had drugs in his back pocket before where I would stand and what punishment would befit me had I ever been caught.

Heck I grew three plants on my windowsill once. Surely I should be eligible for a Sunday matinee execution to brighten your day up?

Totally wrote all of that baked. Go Cognitive Liberty!

Stu. :worship:

With regards to the health effects these were comprehensively dealt with by Professor Susan Greenfield in her 1994 series of lectures at the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for young people. She covered a range of narcotics including cannabis. This research informs such sites like Talk to Frank which I linked to earlier.

With regards to penalties for illegal use of narcotics, there is a range, from penalties for mere possession to those who produce and traffic this poison. This woman is to be executed, and she will be, was convicted of the most severest offences that of trafficking a large volume of class A drugs. The reasons she did it are totally irrelevant, there is no justification for what she did.

Her execution will send a clear message out to all who partake in this evil trade.

Meanwhile is it right to advocate potential actions that is infract the criminal law on a forum such as this? Could this not be a violation of terms and service of vBulletin who provides this forum. Can the moderators please give us a ruling on this as we do not want to cause this forum to be suspended?

..she didn't traffick it though..she was caught...no drugs she carried will be out on the street...nothing will change by her death...except maybe damage the Bali tourist industry...

Well that's me told.

Kidding.